Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

If the law says 'mothers life in danger' and a doctor signs off on that, then take it to court after the fact.

And possibly loose in court; license to practice, license to stay out of prison.

In any case loss of money. Hmmm, cost of med care is pretty high.


Just to add a personal anecdote:

I was taking care of a terminal patient. The morphine had lost its potency. He secretly asked me to sneak him in a gun.

I considered it seriously. Weighed the pros and cons.
Two days less pain for him vs life in prison for me.
Tough choice.
I'm not in prison.

a reply to: pthena

So doesn't hospice increase pain meds in that case? I've heard tons of cases where they say that hospice just gives morphine until death.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

All states allow abortion to save the life of the mother.

And ambiguous laws which include sanctions on doctors and hospitals can result in death.

I heard a rumor that some laws are intentionally written ambiguous. For the chilling effect.

Right. If it takes a few innocent women's deaths to put millions of uppity women back in their place, then those are worthy deaths.

a reply to: nickyw

Wait, wut?

abortion is the tool of eugenics and was conceived alongside the wider welfare state to keep the poor poor and poor and in using poverty to keep them from having more children.. only the rich, that is those with good genetics would have more children thus out breeding those with poor genetics and in time eradicating those with poor genetics without having to resort to mass extermination

Abortion has been around for thousands of years, generally resulting in local governments/ruling classes deeming it illegal and/or homicide; the earliest recorded instance was around 1550 BC.

the first instincts of these people is mass extermination of those with the wrong genetics this includes the disabled, the poor as being poor/sick is a genetic issue.. if you look at those captured by the tyrans issues its the different, the proto homosexuals the transexuals, the autistic, the abused and those with other mental health issues.. its the classic group eugenicists want removed from the gene pool.

Ok. I don't know who these "people" are, but it seems like these people are just..... people. Lets play devil's advocate. What happened for centuries to these children that were born disabled? Sick? Autistic? Etc.? They were abandoned, locked up, forgotten about, abused, and killed in one way or another. Yeah, sure, that's a life that they would've wanted. 100%. As far as economic status went, well........ when safe sex isn't taught. thought, or practiced (usually because BC isn't available or you don't know any better) and you have something come along that you can't afford and can't handle...... you go the abort route.

It's not some big conspiracy theory, I don't know why both sides keep perpetuating these grandiose ideas

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

It wasn't hospice.
He had a "dose yourself" type set up, but it had a regulator on it, so it wouldn't be a "end it yourself" situation.

That was a while back. Some laws may have changed since then.

a reply to: carewemust

genesis 9

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
put these people down, or lock them up?

a reply to: pthena

did you call the patients dr when he asked for a gun?

originally posted by: sarcasticcritic
a reply to: carewemust

genesis 9

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
put these people down, or lock them up?

Those who view government as "God" will do what the government allows.
i.e.
OK to shoot the VietCong because Nixon says it is.
OK to kill the in-belly baby because he's not a human life until birth.

A relatively few Americans see God as the one who gives authorizations for killing humans. Maybe some parts of the Bible say its OK to take human life, under certain circumstances?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Nope. Just charted it. I don't remember if I told the charge nurse or not.

a reply to: pthena

Hope I never am in the position of dependency with you in charge. Appauling.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I'm retired. No fears then.

And I'm not the topic of the thread.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Constitutional argument, not right.

Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's the rain.
RGB

In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.

www.npr.org...

"" constitutional right to abortion"" so who's opinion was that ?

a reply to: WingDingLuey

In 1973, the Court determined in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.1 The constitutional basis for the decision rested upon the conclusion that the right of privacy “founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action” encompassed a woman’s decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

www.law.cornell.edu...

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court Affirmed that the Constitutional Right to Liberty Protects the Right to Abortion

nwlc.org...


US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

Millions of women in the US will lose the constitutional right to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned its 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision.

U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ends constitutional right to abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized women's constitutional right to abortion

a reply to: Sookiechacha

but the supreme court just recently said it's unconstitutional and the states can decide according to the constitution and make it legal by their own constitutions

which rule is now the law?

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yeah! The Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right that The People have retained for 50 years. SCOTUS has never before ever revoked a constitutional right.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yeah! The Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right that The People have retained for 50 years. SCOTUS has never before ever revoked a constitutional right.

Out of curiosity; how many rights have the SCOTUS created?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yeah! The Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right that The People have retained for 50 years. SCOTUS has never before ever revoked a constitutional right.

Pssst.....that's because it wasn't a right.

No matter how many times you post talking heads claiming it.


The entire premise rests on the "right to privacy."

Which was, is and always will be asinine.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yeah! The Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right that The People have retained for 50 years. SCOTUS has never before ever revoked a constitutional right.

Out of curiosity; how many rights have the SCOTUS created?

Gay marriage.

Marbury v madison is questionable to this end.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Yeah! The Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right that The People have retained for 50 years. SCOTUS has never before ever revoked a constitutional right.

Pssst.....that's because it wasn't a right.

No matter how many times you post talking heads claiming it.


The entire premise rests on the "right to privacy."

Which was, is and always will be asinine.

How come my right to right to privacy doesn't stop my government and private entities from spying on me on a regular basis?

a reply to: dandandat2

I hear you.

And I answer back, how come my right to keep and bear arms is being infringed by my government?